On Thu, 27 Nov 1997, romper wrote:

> My quest to get info on the dangers/benefits of saturated fats hasn't
> been going so well. So here I am trying again.
>
>
> Does anyone having any info as to why saturated fats are ok?

It seems that at the current time there is little evidence to
support the assertion that saturated fats are okay.  The evidence
against such a claim seems overwhelming at this point in time.

However, it is important to be clear what it means to say that
SFAs are not okay.  Mainly, it means that not everybody can
safely ingest them with impunity; it certainly doesn't mean that
nobody can.  Some people, such as myself, respond to dietary SFAs
with large-scale worsening of cardiovascular risk factors, except
for triglycerides, which appear to be more closely correlated
with refined carb intake anyway.  Others, such as Grant, respond
very differently to them.  I don't think there's any way to
predict the response for an individual.

The mechanism by which SFAs worsen cardiovascular risk factors is
not yet understood.  At the current time, it appears that
myristic, lauric, and palmitic acids are the problematic ones,
but the picture is far from clear.  Palmitic acid, for example,
seems to promote the retention of dietary cholesterol, but if
dietary cholesterol is low to begin with, this is not a problem.
Stearic acid seems to be at worst neutral, but possibly
beneficial.

There is also evidence that saturated fats increase insulin
resistance.  In one is permanently on a very low-carb diet, this
may not be a problem.  On a moderately low-carb diet, it could
be.

My opinion is that the best thing one can do is respect the
metabolic and biochemical individuality of people and not expect
that all will respond to the same foods in the same way.
Clearly, Stefansson and Andersen in 1928 did not respond to the
all-meat diet in the same way.  This fact should not be
dismissed.

Mike Kurilla's article, "The Skinny on Fats," at
www.netrition.com, is recommended.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]